Greg Burnham

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

Greg, Thanks for the heads up.

Check back to my #322 posting, I have deleted the link and reposted it.

Sorry about that !!!

chris

Thanks Chris.

I hope that when the area in question is enlarged it can be more readily determined if the t-shirt is a V-neck or not. At first, I was looking at the wrong guy and thought: " Oh wow--he is black!" Just kidding--

...

.

Best frame I could find.

http://24.152.179.96:8400/805E0/WiegOrig.png

This would be approx. 4 seconds after the Altgen's photo, according to available extant films.

chris

Chris,

The link doesn't work.

Cinque,

That is non-responsive. Your argument that:

"The reason it looks like it is a Vee-neck is because it IS a Vee-neck!" -- is absurdly circular.

I have a very real looking stuffed dog in my office. Jim even saw it when he was here. It is very convincing. However, the reason it looks like a dog has nothing to do with It actually being a dog! Your argument holds the same weight as: "Doorway Man's neck looks black because HE is black."

Let me ask you a question: If someone disagreed with my hypothetical idea that Doorway Man is black, by saying: "What about his white face?" -- Would it be a reasonable rebuttal if my reply was: "They altered Altgens and put a white face (Lovelady's or Oswald's or whoever) on the body to obscure a black Cuban's presence in Dealey Plaza." -- ??

IF you are correct and that is Oswald, the problem is with your PROOF and/or with the arguments you are advancing in support of your assertions. They are not persuasive. They are an abuse of language and of logic.

Cinque replies to Burnham:

Greg, the issue is whether the chin-shadow is converting a round-neck t-shirt into a vee. Here is a typical image of a chin shadow. You can see that it is nowhere close to a vee. The situation is that Doorman's t-shirt looks like a vee- sharply like a vee, and to claim that that is an illusion caused by shadow is an extraordinary claim, and what bothers me is not just that you make it but that you expect it to win by default. You want it to be that it's a round-neck t-shirt obfuscated by shadow to look like a vee until I prove otherwise, instead of the sane approach, which is that since it looks sharply like a vee-neck t-shirt we assume that it is until the ones making the extraordinary claim prove otherwise. THE DEFAULT GOES TO THE MOST APPARENT AND STRAIGHT-FORWARD POSSIBILITY AND NOT TO THE OBSCURE AND FANCIFUL ONE. The burden of proof is on those other guys, not on me.

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

Monk,

Since you are going to stick your nose in, the last I heard from you, you were going to contact Jim Marrs about this, presumably to confirm your suspicion that he would disavow our research. I told you then that I had talked with Jim about this, but I did not want to speak for him. Have you contacted him and, if so, what did he tell you? And if you have not, why not? I recommend that you reach out to Jim Marrs and find out.

Jim

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

I have misplaced Jim's contact info.

However, I don't mind saying that I stand by what I wrote irrespective of Jim's opinion, although I am curious as to what is his take on this.

Why are you suddenly characterizing the voicing of my opinions as: "sticking my nose in" Jim? I call it as I see it. This is only the second serious disagreement we have had, Jim. Is it the case that my opinion is only welcomed when it complies with your own, but it is "sticking my nose in" when it does not?

Cinque said:Doorman looks to be wearing a vee-neck t-shirt because he IS wearing a vee-neck t-shirt.

The belligerence of the argument is astounding. Logic does not lose context, therefore, using the same reasoning as Cinque employs here, one can conclude that Doorway Man is a black man. Doorway Man's neck appears to be black because IT IS black! Indeed, it is a Cuban black man with a vendetta, wearing a V-neck t-shirt. The ALTGENS 6 was altered (a white face, etc. was added) to conceal Doorway Man's true race. One can easily tell by how dark the black area under the chin is that it cannot merely be a shadow. Therefore, obviously, it is his true skin color. Why they failed to alter the area under the chin but not the rest is a mystery.

I am being facetious. However, Cinque is being serious? Oh my...

Von Pein,

Give it a break. You have no idea what it means to protect a client. None. On the occasions that JFK's motorcade was traveling dangerously slowly the agents took measures to mitigate the danger. It is SOP. That those measures were not taken in Dealey Plaza is suspect.

Robin,

Thank you very much for this resource. It is quite helpful. And thanks for pointing me to it, Pat.

A few observations:

1) the [Altgens'] photo being studied is hardly an optimal source due to its being a copy of a copy of a copy...

2) clearly discerning what is shown at the doorway is sketchy due to the size of the image being studied even if it came from a high resolution source (but, at least then there would be a chance at clarity)

3) limitations (72k) inherent to a web browser's ability to display images further dampens the force of arguments based upon images that require SHARP resolution in order to reach a conclusion

4) if anyone has an extremely high resolution copy of Altgens 6 and would be willing to upload it to a server, such as, photo bucket for instance, others could down load it and study it without the limitations imposed by web browsers

Jim, have you studied these images after having first used a high resolution copy and without it being displayed by a web browser? If so, can you send me (us) the link to that super high resolution copy that may be downloaded?

Thanks in advance--

Wow, can you see that v-neck tee shirt? ROFLMAO!

Craig,

I'm not buying this "discovery" one way or another at this point. However, WTF are you talking about the V-neck for?

From Fetzer's website he says:

But, let’s continue our three-way comparison. Both Doorway Man and Oswald were wearing “v-necked” t-shirts. Was Lovelady? Well, we have three pictures of Lovelady, and in two of them he is clearly wearing a round-necked t-shirt. One of them was taken shortly after the assassination by the FBI, while the other was taken several years later. Most men wear one or the other. It’s like boxers or briefs. The third photo is the same one of Lovelady that you see above, taken on the day of the assassination. To my eye, as I blow the picture up, it looks like he [LOVELADY] is wearing a round-neck t-shirt. It certainly does not have that notched, descending quality that you see on Doorway Man and Oswald.

IOW: Fetzer is not claiming that Lovelady was wearing a V-neck T-shirt at all! The conclusion implied by your post results in a non sequitur.

Physical evidence, indeed.

I think Ed Hoffman also reported seeing the wound from above. He said it looked like "bloody jello" --

hello there Craig.... yes, I did back in 2003, remember... aerial image transfers, optical film printing, animation frame stands, 8mm-to-35mm film blowups, 35mm to 8mm reductions, experienced glass painters, the best film matte painters, etc... Makes not one wit of difference where in the frame "things" ah, need to be ah, "fixed"! Inner frame area, sprocket hole area... plenty of time to work either area... shed your image mechanic, technocrat jacket, get back to that creative-studio 'think' mode that makes getting the right pic-film happen -- and you're there...

No Dave, you miss the point as usual. You are waving your hands. The is a VERY specific case as detailed by BLOCK. Now instead of waving your hands, point us step by step, in the time frame alloted by BLOCKS's theory.

Lets review..

BLOCK says:

"This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand."

Take a STAB at it Dave, and COMMIT for once.

Not that I'm holding my breath YOU will actually commit to ANYTHING but the wild waving of hands...

hold your breath? LMAO! Waved my hands 12 years ago, Craig. The 'What IF'S' if you recall, if you need a refresher you can always take a peek at your well worn copy of The Great Zapruder Film HOAX, there's a chapter someplace in there, by me, you might just find enlightening

Mr. Block is correct: "This is not a super advanced process. It is relatively simple, obvious work that could be done quickly with a small team and more basic equipment--- one optical printer modified for aerial imaging with a condenser and an animation stand.". Especially, when it comes to hiding a blowout wound to the back of the president's head already in shadow. I understand the possible angst displayed in this thread, can't have Oswald shooting from in front off and from the rear of, at the same time.... simple as that.

The film evaluation-overview (from a Hollywood colorist-film post professional standpoint) done recently in Hollywood has an undeniable legend. Perhaps Dr. Thompson SHOULD take a peek, I understand he has an invite... Further, I think a first year 1963-64 vintage animation stand artist-technician could of accomplished what's being alluded to here with a crayon! Not rocket science, Craig!

Good point, Dave.

One of the persons I spoke with at DELUXE said the same thing. This would not have been an advanced process at all; it would have been relatively simple given that it would not require super sophisticated equipment nor would it require very much time...only talent.

The cartridge casings alleged to have been found on the 6th floor of the TSBD were traced back to the WESTERN CARTRIDGE Company of Chicago. They were from a batch of 400,000 ordered by the USMC. The ammunition was manufactured in 1954 (not 1958). The FBI report in which this information appeared specifies that [paraphrased] ...since the Marine Corps has no weapons in which 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition could be employed...the ammunition was purchased (presumably for the CIA) by the Marine Corps for reasons of cover..."

Greg Burnham, on 19 January 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

I was being rather kind.

Ray said: That's a big change for you, Greg.

monk said: You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread before you comment further.

Ray said: Simply don't have time, old chap, so what's your point?

monk sez:

You might not want to engage in discussions without having first read the context in which the discussions have taken place.

Ok, Ray. Sorry to leave you out. Would you like to accompany me to DELUXE, as well? Send me an email, I'll see what I can do.

Greg. I DON'T READ EVERYTHING

on the forum

so I don't understand the reference

to DE LUXE

No problem, Ray. It was obvious. I was being rather kind. You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread before you comment further.

Ray,

Neither you nor Pat nor I are qualified to make those judgments. None of us are forensic specialists. He thinks from the rear, you think from the front. blah, blah, blah...

DO NOT BLOCK THE PATH OF INQUIRY.

Charles Sanders Peirce.

Ok, Ray. Sorry to leave you out. Would you like to accompany me to DELUXE, as well? Send me an email, I'll see what I can do.

Ray,

Neither you nor Pat nor I are qualified to make those judgments. None of us are forensic specialists. He thinks from the rear, you think from the front. blah, blah, blah...

AGREED, Josiah.

THE head-snap was crucial to David Lifton'S theory

which is why I simply do not understand

why David claims the Z-film is fake.

Raymond,

There have obviously been many points of contention between me and DAVID LIFTON. However, I think this is evidence of David's integrity. Even though he has relied on the Zapruder film to make his case, he has also been intellectually honest enough to admit the existence of problems within his "photographic best evidence" --the contradiction be damned. I think this speaks well of David.

[i think Pat Speer has valuable insights here,

although PAT 7 I DISAGREE about the source of the head shot.

I think Pat is right that there was no blowout

in the back of the head.

If there was no blowout to the back of the head, then where do you think the frontal shot exited? I am surprised, Ray. You are one who constantly berates anyone who even examines evidence that in any way fails to exonerate OSWALD. The existence of a rear blowout to the head OBVIOUSLY could not have been created as the result of a shot originating from the (rear) alleged position of OSWALD.

But I disagree with Pat.

The knoll shot was an EXPLODING bullet

from the knoll

which did not exit.

My two cents.

So, you agree with Pat Speer: ALL OF THE WITNESSES WHO REPORTED A REAR BLOWOUT WERE MISTAKEN?

wow--

Greg, as you probably realize, I don't pretend to be an expert on the technical aspects of the Z-film. As a result, I wouldn't be able to say for sure what a blacked out segment of the film proved. [emphasis added]

Pat,

In all due respect, did you really say that you wouldn't be able to determine for sure "what a blacked out segment of the film proved..." ??? At the very least, I would think that you could say that the existence of such a PATCH would definitively prove that: THE FILM HAS BEEN ALTERED! -- right?

If Sydney wishes to invite me to an upcoming viewing of her film, I will try to attend. I can be reached at pat@patspeer.com.

There is no "upcoming viewing" for anyone to attend, Pat. This is a work in progress. However, a whole lot has already been accomplished. If you would like to accompany me to DELUXE to see this evidence for yourself, just send me an email: JFKresearch@cox.net

Sydney has indicated that anyone I invite to accompany me will be welcome.

Great post, John.

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

So you know what each of us has seen and measured? I don't think so.

I don't know what you have viewed. I do know that you have made critical observations concerning this evidence which you have NOT viewed. You are invited to actually conduct primary research by viewing this evidence. If you are unable to do so due to financial or personal or professional reasons, I understand and no one should hold that against you.

However, if you are capable of examining and evaluating this evidence, I encourage you to accept the invitation. If not, I will not draw any conclusions about you and/or about your reasons for declining the invitation.

What's not clear to me is whether this is even possible. From your post it sounds like it's "eyes only" at the moment.

J

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific?

There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank.

Thanks in advance,

J

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable.

I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can.

So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face.

Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

good news, Monk....

Could've just emailed me or called me John. Whatever.

Whatever.

As I'm not sure when I'll next be near Burbank, is it at all possible for Sydney Wilkinson et al to throw a scan or three onto a DVD and mail it across the Pacific?

There are other moves afoot to get the NARA scans, but I'd be interested to see what everyone's excited about in Burbank.

Thanks in advance,

J

I just returned home after having spent the day in Burbank. I met with Sydney Wilkinson et al to view their incredibly HUGE (3rd generation) scans. When I say huge I am referring to the amount of data contained in the images. There are several observations that are worth mentioning. There is no question as to the existence of a BLACK PATCH in Z-317. It isn't merely suggested there--it is OBVIOUSLY there. There are several other frames that display similar evidence of "patchwork" having been applied. This is not a guess. It is simply inescapable.

I invite everyone to look at the current logo that GOOGLE employed today in protest of congressional censorship of the internet. Can you tell that the letters are being obscured by a BLACK PATCH? I bet you can.

So too, in these 3rd generation extremely high quality Z-film scans it is blatantly in your face.

Sydney gave me permission to personally invite Tink to accompany me on my return trip to DELUXE Studios in the near future. See, it's important that Tink gets to actually see the evidence for himself before stepping in it. Therefore, here's an open invitation, Tink. Let me know when you want to go. Pat Speer, I also invite you to ride along. Just let me know when.

good news, Monk....

Could've just emailed me or called me John. Whatever.

Not sure if I understand the post... "like the shadows that appear at other places in the frame" suggests that you think the BOH shadow is consistent with the others.

What I noticed was the shadow at the back of JFK's head do not change as other similiar shadows do and in fact looks to ME like it floats over the head...

I happen to do a z317 analysis just to see how these shadows behaved... as well as a gif at high contrast to see how that area changes... that area stays VERY dark comparitively...

yet I of course view it with suspicious eyes...

and I agree with you again JT... been hearing about these glorious 35mm Hollywood frames that make it obvious... maybe saving it for the 50th?

If you watch President Kennedy's head from the side -- it looks like it's imploding. He was being shot from the back also, but they put a dark blot on the back of Kennedy's head.

I'm trying to catch up on this thread.

Someone mentioned Rich DellaRosa. Rich passed away about 2 years ago, I'm sorry to say.

Kathy C

Hi Kathy,

You might want to go back to the beginning of the thread. Sorry, my friend, but this is a distraction.

Craig? Tink? Speer? You've each been invited to actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE. This is evidence that you have each been commenting on WITHOUT having ever seen it for yourselves!

This is a golden opportunity. And, as a bonus, I volunteer to be there for the viewing! That way I can confirm the conclusions that any of you might reach that might differ from the conclusions of those who actually work in the industry.

I am incapable of fabricating evidence. It is not how I work. I will honestly report the results of your investigation without passion or prejudice even if it is at odds with my own previously held conclusions.

Craig,

I just got off the phone with Sydney. She said that you can even bring along "any equipment of your choosing" in order to take the measurements (or whatever it is) that you seek.

Just as a "word to the wise" : DELUXE STUDIOS is the definitive REAL DEAL. Bring what you think you need, but the airlines are charging 50 bucks just for an additional checked bag these days.

I can assure you that DELUXE has equipment that will far surpass your wildest imagination. Still, knock yourself out--